Why not to vote for Bush

Disaster has struck

2004-11-03T17:30:00.000-08:00

On November the second, enemies of freedom attacked our country. They spread hate, and fear, and sought to undermine the freedom that makes our country great. They hope to instill fear in the heart of America to support their own malicious ends.

Americans have many questions tonight. Americans are asking: Who attacked our country? The evidence we have gathered all points to a collection of loosely affiliated organizations known as the Right-Wing. They are the same murderers responsible for the unprovoked invasion of Iraq, and the ominous encroachment upon our civil liberties that has continued for the past many years.

Great harm has been done to us. We have suffered great loss. And in our grief and anger we have found our mission and our moment. Freedom and fear are at war. The advance of human freedom -- the great achievement of our time, and the great hope of every time -- now depends on us. Our nation -- this generation -- will lift a dark threat of violence from our people and our future. We will rally the world to this cause by our efforts, by our courage. We will not tire, we will not falter, and we will not fail.

It is my hope that in the months and years ahead, life will return almost to normal. We'll go back to our lives and routines, and that is good. Even grief recedes with time and grace. But our resolve must not pass. Each of us will remember what happened that day, and to whom it happened. We'll remember the moment the news came -- where we were and what we were doing

I will not forget this wound to our country or those who inflicted it. I will not yield; I will not rest; I will not relent in waging this struggle for freedom and security for the American people.

Thank you. (Applause.)

END 9:41 P.M. EDT

Well, that's it. It's whyyoushouldnthavevotedforbush.blogspot.com now.

Damn.

Some great rebuttals

2004-10-09T21:49:00.000-07:00

Here you will find some great rebuttals, with supporting references, to accusations made against Senator Kerry.

Holy Crap: A History of the Iraq War, Told Entirely In Lies

2004-10-08T14:28:00.000-07:00

Here you will find the argument for invading Iraq, as presented by the Bush Administration. The entire thing is composed entirely of quotes taken verbatim from speeches made by Bush administration officials, with tenses changed in places to make them fit. Each lie has since been proven false. Awesome piece of work.

The Case for Bush

2004-10-07T23:55:00.000-07:00

George Bush's resume certainly is impressive.

There is an Elevated threat level of a second Bush term.

2004-10-05T23:12:00.000-07:00

Current Bush Second Term threat level is Orange. In the event of a disaster, go here.

How Bush Did in the First Debate

2004-10-03T18:51:00.000-07:00

Well, here's how he did: howbushdid.blogspot.com. (Great collage!) You know, he's actually a pretty good public speaker when all he has to do is recite a speech somebody else wrote for him. But if he has to come up with his own arguments, he's demonstrably out of his depth. I caught the last part of the debate live on the radio, and his closing lines hit his strong points pretty well; they appealed to patriotic emotions and invoked quasi-religious phrasing like "we have climbed the mighty mountain, and I see the valley below us," while at the same time he jabbed at Kerry for "sending the enemy mixed signals," implying that any criticism of George endangers the country. I'm pretty sure that the "mountain" phrase was given to him by an aide to include in his notes; it sounds too carefully crafted and contrasts too sharply with the rest of his "uhhhh... um, uh" debate tactics.

Another list of flops

2004-09-30T01:44:00.000-07:00

http://www.americanprogressaction.org/site/pp.asp?c=klLWJcP7H&b=118263

Ah, good stuff.

A newspaper in Bush's hometown of Crawford has outlined excellent arguments against Bush

2004-09-29T21:35:00.000-07:00

http://news.iconoclast-texas.com/web/Columns/Editorial/editorial39.htm

The paper, established in 2000, supported Bush in his first campaign, but has now outlined some brilliant arguments against his second campaign:

"Few Americans would have voted for George W. Bush four years ago if he had promised that, as President, he would:
• Empty the Social Security trust fund by $507 billion to help offset fiscal irresponsibility and at the same time slash Social Security benefits.
• Cut Medicare by 17 percent and reduce veterans’ benefits and military pay.
• Eliminate overtime pay for millions of Americans and raise oil prices by 50 percent.
• Give tax cuts to businesses that sent American jobs overseas, and, in fact, by policy encourage their departure.
• Give away billions of tax dollars in government contracts without competitive bids.
• Involve this country in a deadly and highly questionable war, and
• Take a budget surplus and turn it into the worst deficit in the history of the United States, creating a debt in just four years that will take generations to repay."

Indeed.

A few of Bush's lies

2004-09-28T22:55:00.000-07:00

This is a reply on Slashdot to a fellow who said, "The reason no one brings this up [the question of why so many people are ignoring George W. Bush's lies] is because there were no lies told by President Bush. If you disagree, please cite, with sources a single lie told by President Bush. Please note that in order for something to be a lie it must be an untruth deliberatly told, not something believed at the time that later turned out to be false."

I like this sort of brazen challenge to common sense. How do we know that the world is round?

Well:
It would take me all night to list all Bush's lies, but here's a few. The falsehoods told by George Bush (and most other politicians) can fall into five categories: Self-contradictions, falsehoods stated while ignorant or with a plausible after-the-fact claim to ignorance, statements that are only technically or half-true, lies by implication, and outright lies.
Some outright lies:
The single worst lie Bush has told, I think, is that the terrorists attacked us "because they hate our freedom," and that "America has been called to defend its freedom." That isn't true (defend it from what? Radical Muslims cannot take away an American's freedom; the government can), and it's clear that he said it mainly because if you can invoke the word "freedom," you've got a pretty good soundbite. If you can get Americans united in what they believe is the cause of freedom, you can get most of us to blindly play 'follow the leader' even to the point that we will eschew freedoms and the right to privacy in the name of freedom.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/04/20 020409-8.html [whitehouse.gov]
"They ["the people we're dealing with"] hate our freedoms."
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20 020328.html [whitehouse.gov] "They ["an enemy that are nothing but a bunch of cold-blooded killers"] hate what America stands for. They hate our religious tolerance. They hate our freedom of speech. They hate freedom of the press. They despise freedom. They despise freedom."
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20 010920-8.html [whitehouse.gov]
" On September the 11th, enemies of freedom committed an act of war against our country. ... freedom itself is under attack. ... They hate our freedoms -- our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other. ... This is not, however, just America's fight. And what is at stake is not just America's freedom. This is the world's fight. This is civilization's fight. This is the fight of all who believe in progress and pluralism, tolerance and freedom. ... Freedom and fear are at war. The advance of human freedom -- the great achievement of our time, and the great hope of every time -- now depends on us."

In fact, the Al Qaeda group attacked us because it is a group of Islamic extremists that believes that the force of what they call "jahiliyya" (infidelity), represented by the West and epitomized by America, is on a crusade against Islam. Usama Bin Ladin turned his focus from the Soviet Union to the United States when he became aware that the U.S. had stationed troops in Saudi Arabia, home of the Muslim holy lands. He came to see the United States as "the head of the snake," ultimately responsible for all the regional conflicts in the Middle East, citing America's apparent support for Israel in the Arab-Israeli conflict, the growing global effect of American culture, and other influences. In 1998, Bin Ladin issued a fatwa declaring it the duty of what he believed to be "real Muslims" to kill Americans.
They don't give a shit about freedom. There was no terrorist group sitting around in a cave at one point that suddenly decided, "Hey, you know? America is way too free. Let's go hijack some airplanes and let's show 'em." Freedom doesn't enter into it. What they hate is what they percieve as our "imperialism" and what they call our "crusade against Islam." It's quite irrational, but that is the al Qaeda assessment of the world. If there is a madman on the loose, you should at least want to know what has driven him mad so that you know how to approach him.
So there's one very blatant lie Mr. Bush has repeated so forcefully and so often that we can't even see it unless we take a step back to look: His entire explanation to the public of what happened on 9/11. I'm pretty sure Bush is aware that the source of international terrorism arises from grievances that desperate and radical groups believe they must resort to violence to solve, but he chooses instead to sugar-coat reality with bizarre but emotionally appealing metaphors. His edict that "freedom is at war with fear" makes absolutely no sense whatsoever outside of a weird Diablo II sort of mentality. His approach to terrorism is, "Who will join me on my quest to Babylon to defeat the Lord of Terror?"
That would be pretty cool if national security was an RPG, but I'm pretty sure that there is a real distinction between the two. Which brings me to my next point:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20 020925-1.html [whitehouse.gov]
"You can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror," "they work in concert," and "al Qaeda becomes an extension of Saddam's madness and his hatred and his capacity to extend weapons of mass destruction around the world."
The full quote:

PRESIDENT BUSH: That's a -- that is an interesting question. I'm trying to think of something humorous to say. (Laughter.) But I can't when I think about al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. They're both risks, they're both dangerous. The difference, of course, is that al Qaeda likes to hijack governments. Saddam Hussein is a dictator of a government. Al Qaeda hides, Saddam doesn't, but the danger is, is that they work in concert. The danger is, is that al Qaeda becomes an extension of Saddam's madness and his hatred and his capacity to extend weapons of mass destruction around the world. Both of them need to be dealt with. The war on terror, you can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror. And so it's a comparison that is -- I can't make because I can't distinguish between the two, because they're both equally as bad, and equally as evil, and equally as destructive.

He apparently means that "you can't distinguish between Al Qaeda and Saddam" because they're both bad guys, bad guys should be dealt with, so let's get them both. And he says "they work in concert."
However, Osama bin Laden has denounced Saddam Hussein as a secular infidel. The two did not work in tandem. "Bin Ladin had in fact been sponsoring anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan, and sought to attract them into his Islamic army." (9/11 Commission Report, pp 61). So no, Saddam Hussein does not work in concert with al Qaeda. As retired general Brent Scowcroft, National Security Advisor to George HW Bush, pointed out in 2002,

"But there is scant evidence to tie Saddam to terrorist organizations, and even less to the Sept. 11 attacks. Indeed Saddam's goals have little in common with the terrorists who threaten us, and there is little incentive for him to make common cause with them. He is unlikely to risk his investment in weapons of mass destruction, much less his country, by handing such weapons to terrorists who would use them for their own purposes and leave Baghdad as the return address. Threatening to use these weapons for blackmail--much less their actual use--would open him and his entire regime to a devastating response by the U.S. While Saddam is thoroughly evil, he is above all a power-hungry survivor. Saddam is a familiar dictatorial aggressor, with traditional goals for his aggression. There is little evidence to indicate that the United States itself is an object of his aggression. Rather, Saddam's problem with the U.S. appears to be that we stand in the way of his ambitions. He seeks weapons of mass destruction not to arm terrorists, but to deter us from intervening to block his aggressive designs. Given Saddam's aggressive regional ambitions, as well as his ruthlessness and unpredictability, it may at some point be wise to remove him from power. Whether and when that point should come ought to depend on overall U.S. national security priorities. Our pre-eminent security priority--underscored repeatedly by the president--is the war on terrorism. An attack on Iraq at this time would seriously jeopardize, if not destroy, the global counterterrorist campaign we have undertaken."

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.ht ml?id=110002133 [opinionjournal.com]
General Anthony Zinni, former supreme commander of United States Central Command in charge of American military forces in the middle east has said,

The country that started this, Iran, is about to turn around, 180 degrees. We ought to be focused on that. The father of extremism, the home of the ayatollah -- the young people are ready to throw out the mullahs and turn around, become a secular society and throw off these ideas of extremism. That is more important and critical. They're the ones that funded Hezbollah and other terrorist organizations. That ought to be a focus. And I can give you many, many more before you get down to Saddam and Iraq.

http://www.npr.org/programs/morning/zinni.html [npr.org]
The New Yorker had an article that at one point provided a pretty good list of Bush's self-contradictions:

It happens often enough to form a pattern: the President talks of a Marshall Plan for Afghanistan at the Virginia Military Institute in April, 2002, and then he fails to include any dollars for Afghanistan in his 2004 budget proposal; the President gives a landmark speech at the American Enterprise Institute in February, 2003, proposing a democratic Iraq as a model for the transformation of the entire Middle East, and within two months the Pentagon’s minimalist planning for postwar Iraq has that country in chaos, its state institutions gutted, its people demoralized; the State Department sets out to improve public diplomacy in the Islamic world, then puts the campaign in the hands of Charlotte Beers, a Madison Avenue executive, who produces a slick video about Muslims in the United States that is widely ridiculed; the Administration vows to get tough on Saudi sources that finance terrorism and the spread of extremist ideology, then suppresses the section of a congressional report on September 11th having to do with Saudi Arabia; after the Iraq war the President vows to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, only to stand aside a few months later.

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040216fa_fa ct1 [newyorker.com]
And there's many more.
Here are a few lists others have compiled:
Outright lies: http://www.warblogging.com/archives/000800.php [warblogging.com]
Self-contradictions far worse than any Kerry has ever been accused of: http://flipflops.compassiongate.com/iraq-fp.htm#1_ 8 [compassiongate.com]
http://www.mydd.com/story/2004/8/20/213846/709 [mydd.com]
If you want more examples, ask.
There's plenty to choose from.

George doesn't listen to his own advisors, the American people, or the world

2004-09-24T01:44:00.000-07:00

People who George Bush should really have listened to before invading Iraq (or could at least listen to now), including U.S. generals (green), people in or directly related to the Bush Administration who have said things contradicting Bush's arguments in the march to war (red), American soldiers and their families (orange), and others, including the Pope:

**** Dick Cheney. This is linked several other places on this site as well, but so few people apparently know about it that it's worth repeating. On April 29, 1991, Cheney gave a speech at the Washington Institute's Soref Symposium in which he gave the message quoted in the following excerpt. Though the situation has changed substantially since then, it's clear that it hasn't changed enough to prevent Cheney's prediction from coming true.

I think that the proposition of going to Baghdad is also fallacious. I think if we were going to remove Saddam Hussein we would have had to go all the way to Baghdad, we would have to commit a lot of force because I do not believe he would wait in the Presidential Palace for us to arrive. I think we'd have had to hunt him down. And once we'd done that and we'd gotten rid of Saddam Hussein and his government, then we'd have had to put another government in its place.

What kind of government? Should it be a Sunni government or Shi'i government or a Kurdish government or Ba'athist regime? Or maybe we want to bring in some of the Islamic fundamentalists? How long would we have had to stay in Baghdad to keep that government in place? What would happen to the government once U.S. forces withdrew? How many casualties should the United States accept in that effort to try to create clarity and stability in a situation that is inherently unstable?

I think it is vitally important for a President to know when to use military force. I think it is also very important for him to know when not to commit U.S. military force. And it's my view that the President got it right both times, that it would have been a mistake for us to get bogged down in the quagmire inside Iraq.

**** George HW Bush. These are also mentioned elsewhere on this site. In his book co-written with Brent Scowcroft, A World Transformed, George Bush gave the following reasons why we didn't invade Iraq in the first US-Iraq war. These reasons were still essentially valid in 2003, when George Junior ignored his father's words and went ahead with the invasion.

Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-cold war world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome.

In explaining to Gulf War vets why he didn't invade Iraq:

"Whose life would be on my hands as the commander-in-chief because I, unilaterally, went beyond the international law, went beyond the stated mission, and said we're going to show our macho?" he asked. "We're going into Baghdad. We're going to be an occupying power -- America in an Arab land -- with no allies at our side. It would have been disastrous. We don't gain the size of our victory by how many innocent kids running away -- even though they're bad guys -- that we can slaughter. ... We're American soldiers; we don't do business that way."

**** David Kay. While Saddam, unsurprisingly, had fragmentary remnants of his past weapons programs scattered across the country, David Kay found none of the weapons on which the war was predicated. Hussein bluffed to the world in claiming to have WMDs, and bluffed also in saying that he was already in accordance with UN law. Hussein's own scientists bluffed in telling their leader that they were engaging in weapons projects that would increase Iraq's might.

**** Charles Duelfer. Duelfer replaced Kay, and though he expected to find weapons that would indicate that Iraq was a real threat to the world, after about a year his report speaks only of "regime intent" for projects to construct factories that could make prohibited weapons.

**** Richard Clarke. There was a big debacle with people trying to discredit Clarke a few months ago because Clarke's descriptions of Bush's orders were more dramatic in interviews on television than in his book, Against All Enemies. Oh, wow, the television version he gave is more dramatic than in the book? That means that everything in the book must be wrong! There's a Time magazine article that tries to tear Clarke down, but even that article focuses mainly on the way his television arguments are more dramatic than his argument in his book. And even that article admits that "many of his contentions — about the years of political and intelligence missteps that led to 9/11, the failure of two Administrations to destroy al-Qaeda and the potentially disastrous consequences of the U.S. invasion of Iraq — deserve a wide and serious airing." And lastly, here's this from somebody who actually knows Clarke.

**** Condoleeza Rice Same deal with Colin Powell. Though Rice is still loyal to Bush, in 2001 she did say about Saddam that "We are able to keep weapons from him; his military forces have not been rebuilt."

**** Michael Scheuer. The CIA's Bin Laden unit is smaller today than at the time of the attacks. As the former head of this unit rightly points out, that's pretty damned stupid.

**** Gregory Thielmann. GregoryThielmann is a diplomat and intelligence official who has pointed out that Iraq did not pose an immediate threat, and that essentially Bush & Co. are full of BS.

**** Brent Scowcroft. Another important piece linked several times. Like Powell, Scowcroft maintains his (rather unwise) loyalty to Bush. Even so, in August 2002 he presented some brilliant arguments against the invasion.

Israel would have to expect to be the first casualty, as in 1991 when Saddam sought to bring Israel into the Gulf conflict. This time, using weapons of mass destruction, he might succeed, provoking Israel to respond, perhaps with nuclear weapons, unleashing an Armageddon in the Middle East. Finally, if we are to achieve our strategic objectives in Iraq, a military campaign very likely would have to be followed by a large-scale, long-term military occupation.

But the central point is that any campaign against Iraq, whatever the strategy, cost and risks, is certain to divert us for some indefinite period from our war on terrorism. Worse, there is a virtual consensus in the world against an attack on Iraq at this time. So long as that sentiment persists, it would require the U.S. to pursue a virtual go-it-alone strategy against Iraq, making any military operations correspondingly more difficult and expensive. The most serious cost, however, would be to the war on terrorism. Ignoring that clear sentiment would result in a serious degradation in international cooperation with us against terrorism. And make no mistake, we simply cannot win that war without enthusiastic international cooperation, especially on intelligence.
Possibly the most dire consequences would be the effect in the region. The shared view in the region is that Iraq is principally an obsession of the U.S. The obsession of the region, however, is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. If we were seen to be turning our backs on that bitter conflict--which the region, rightly or wrongly, perceives to be clearly within our power to resolve--in order to go after Iraq, there would be an explosion of outrage against us. We would be seen as ignoring a key interest of the Muslim world in order to satisfy what is seen to be a narrow American interest.

**** General Anthony Zinni. There's a shockingly large number of American generals who think that the Iraq war was bullshit. Zinni is one of the most outspoken of these; he has co-written a book with Tom Clancy describing Bush's failures. The book is titled Battle Ready. Read it. After the war, he said, "In the lead-up to the Iraq War and its later conduct, I saw at a minimum, true dereliction, negligence, and irresponsibility, at worse, lying, incompetence and corruption." Zinni speaking in 2002:

It might be interesting to wonder why all the generals see it the same way, and all those that never fired a shot in anger and are really hell-bent to go to war see it a different way. That's usually the way it is in history. (Crowd laughter.)
...
Our relationships in the region are in major disrepair, not to the point where we can't fix them, but we need to quit making enemies we don't need to make enemies out of. And we need to fix those relationships. There's a deep chasm growing between that part of the world and our part of the world. And it's strange, about a month after 9/11, they were sympathetic and compassionate toward us. How did it happen over the last year? And we need to look at that -- that is a higher priority.

The country that started this, Iran, is about to turn around, 180 degrees. We ought to be focused on that. The father of extremism, the home of the ayatollah -- the young people are ready to throw out the mullahs and turn around, become a secular society and throw off these ideas of extremism. That is more important and critical. They're the ones that funded Hezbollah and other terrorist organizations. That ought to be a focus. And I can give you many, many more before you get down to Saddam and Iraq.

**** General Norman Schwarzkopf. This is the guy who commanded U.S. forces in the Iraq war in 1991. He says that there was no casus belli for the 2003 invasion. http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/special/iraq/1755375

**** General Joseph Hoar, the former Chief of US Central Command. "General Joseph Hoar would have commanded an assault on Baghdad if it were ordered six years ago. He says that now a siege and street to street fighting are highly likely."

JOSEPH HOAR: I'll tell you it's a disaster in my view, but the point is this is political from start to finish. I mean this is a pre-emptive attack. We're going to destroy a regime, because that's what it's about, it's not about weapons. The Vice President said so about six or eight months ago before it was decided that we were going to go to the UN. That's what it is about.

**** General McPeak.

“The report of the 9/11 commission makes this clear: Fighting terrorists alone just doesn’t work,” he said. “If our enemy hatches a terror plot in Rome, we will need help from the Italians. If German intelligence knows the whereabouts of a senior al Qaeda member, America must have that information.”

**** Colin Powell. He said in 2001 that Saddam had "not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors." Being loyal to Bush while also believing his own assessment, Powell is placed in a difficult situation. Since his speech at the UN trying to convince the world that Iraq had " thousands of tons" of WMDs, he has said that "it turned out that we have not found any stockpiles,” “I think it is unlikely that we will find any stockpiles,” and “some of the sourcing that we used to give me the basis upon which to bring forward that judgment to the United Nations was flawed.”

**** Military Families Speak Out. To support our troops is not the same as to insist that they should be placed in harm's way without just cause.

**** Iraq Veterans Against the War. American soldiers want to hear the truth about why they were sent to fight an unnecessary war.

**** Pope John Paul II. It's astonishing how many people don't know that the Pope himself said that invading Iraq would be "a great defeat for humanity." Also:

In an indirect reference to U.S. troops' abuse of Iraqi prisoners, the pope said, "In the past few weeks, other deplorable events have come to light which have troubled the civic and religious conscience of all." He said those events "made more difficult a serene and resolute commitment to shared human values. In the absence of such a commitment, neither war nor terrorism will ever be overcome."

**** Hans Blix. The chief UN weapons inspector reported before the war that there was little or no reason to believe that Iraq had any significant WMD capability.

**** The world. The Iraq war created the world's largest-ever global antiwar rallies. Furthermore, most of the nations of the world were opposed to the invasion, but too afraid to speak up against Bush. About half of George's "coalition of the willing" had to be bribed or coerced.

I've also found on this site some enormous lists. Daily Kos is awesome.
From a poster named mcjoan:

Rep. Doug Bereuter "believes the U.S. military assault on Iraq was unjustified and the situation there has deteriorated into 'a dangerous, costly mess.'"
But here's the good stuff:

Iraq Veterans Campaign for Peace

Diplomats & Military Commanders for Change:

The Honorable Avis T. Bohlen; Assistant Secretary of State for Arms Control, 1999; Ambassador to Bulgaria, 1996; District of Columbia

Admiral William J. Crowe, USN, Ret.; Chairman, President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Committee, 1993; Ambassador to the Court of Saint James, 1993; Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, 1985; Commander in Chief, United States Pacific Command; Oklahoma

The Honorable Jeffrey S. Davidow; Ambassador to Mexico, 1998; Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs, 1996; Ambassador to Venezuela, 1993; Ambassador to Zambia, 1988; Virginia

The Honorable William A. DePree; Ambassador to Bangladesh, 1987; Director of State Department Management Operations, 1983; Ambassador to Mozambique, 1976; Michigan

The Honorable Donald B. Easum; Ambassador to Nigeria, 1975; Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs, 1974; Ambassador to Upper Volta, 1971; Virginia

The Honorable Charles W. Freeman, Jr.; Assistant Secretary of Defense, International Security Affairs, 1993; Ambassador to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, 1989; Rhode Island

The Honorable William C. Harrop; Ambassador to Israel, 1991; Ambassador to Zaire, 1987; Inspector General of the State Department and Foreign Service, 1983; Ambassador to Kenya and Seychelles, 1980; Ambassador to Guinea, 1975; New Jersey

The Honorable Arthur A. Hartman; Ambassador to the Soviet Union, 1981; Ambassador to France, 1977; Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs, 1973; New Jersey

General Joseph P. Hoar, USMC, Ret.; Commander in Chief, United States Central Command, 1991; Deputy Chief of Staff, Marine Corps, 1990; Commanding General, Marine Corps Recruit Depot, Parris Island, 1987; Massachusetts

The Honorable H. Allen Holmes; Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations, 1993; Ambassador at Large for Burdensharing, 1989; Assistant Secretary of State for Politico- Military Affairs, 1986; Ambassador to Portugal, 1982; Kansas

The Honorable Robert V. Keeley; Ambassador to Greece, 1985; Ambassador to Zimbabwe, 1980; Ambassador to Mauritius, 1976; Florida

The Honorable Samuel W. Lewis; Director of State Department Policy and Planning, 1993; Ambassador to Israel, 1977; Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs, 1975; Texas

The Honorable Princeton N. Lyman; Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs, 1997; Ambassador to South Africa, 1992; Director, Bureau of Refugee Programs, 1989; Ambassador to Nigeria, 1986; Maryland

The Honorable Jack F. Matlock, Jr.; Ambassador to the Soviet Union, 1987; Director for European and Soviet Affairs, National Security Council, 1983; Ambassador to Czechoslovakia, 1981; Florida

The Honorable Donald F. McHenry; Ambassador and U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations, 1979; Illinois

General Merrill A. (Tony) McPeak, USAF, Ret.; Chief of Staff, United States Air Force, 1990; Commander in Chief, Pacific Air Forces, 1988; Commander, 12th Air Force and U.S. Southern Command Air Forces, 1987; Oregon

The Honorable George E. Moose; Representative, United Nations European Office, 1997; Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs, 1993; Ambassador to Senegal, 1988; Director, State Department Bureau of Management Operations, 1987; Ambassador to Benin, 1983; Colorado

The Honorable David D. Newsom; Secretary of State ad interim, 1981; Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, 1978; Ambassador to the Philippines, 1977; Ambassador to Indonesia, 1973; Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs, 1969; Ambassador to Libya, 1965; California

The Honorable Phyllis E. Oakley; Assistant Secretary of State for Intelligence and Research, 1997; Assistant Secretary of State for Population, Refugees, and Migration, 1994; Nebraska

The Honorable Robert Oakley; Special Envoy for Somalia, 1992; Ambassador to Pakistan, 1988; Ambassador to Somalia, 1982; Ambassador to Zaire, 1979; Louisiana

The Honorable James D. Phillips; Diplomat-in-Residence, the Carter Center of Emory University, 1994; Ambassador to the Republic of Congo, 1990; Ambassador to Burundi, 1986; Kansas

The Honorable John E. Reinhardt; Director of the United States Information Agency, 1977; Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs, 1975; Ambassador to Nigeria, 1971; Maryland

General William Y. Smith, USAF, Ret.; Chief of Staff for Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe, 1979; Assistant to the Chairman, Organization of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, 1975; Director of National Security Affairs, Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs, 1974; Arkansas

The Honorable Ronald I. Spiers; Under Secretary General of the United Nations for Political Affairs, 1989; Under Secretary of State for Management, 1983; Ambassador to Pakistan, 1981; Director, State Department Bureau of Intelligence and Research, 1980; Ambassador to Turkey, 1977; Ambassador to The Bahamas, 1973; Director, State Department Bureau of Politico-Military Affairs, 1969; Vermont

The Honorable Michael E. Sterner; Ambassador to the United Arab Emirates, 1974; New York

Admiral Stansfield Turner, USN, Ret.; Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, 1977; Commander in Chief, Allied Forces Southern Europe (NATO), 1975; Commander, U.S. Second Fleet, 1974; Illinois

The Honorable Alexander F. Watson; Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs, 1993; Ambassador to Brazil, 1992; Deputy Permanent Representative to the United Nations, 1989; Ambassador to Peru, 1986; Maryland

From a guy named AlanF:

Officers file brief against Bush's Guantanamo policy

Opposition to entering the war on Iraq (Scowcroft, etc.)
More opposition to entering the Iraq war (Schwarzkopf, Hoar, etc.)

This list is not comprehensive.